Global Carbon Project

The Global Carbon Project (GCP) is this organization that has fantastic infographics about our atmosphere, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. They use their graphics to integrates all the knowledge of greenhouse gases, human activities and the Earth system. They were founded in 2001 to fully understand the carbon cycle on our planet. Their projects include global budgets for the three dominant greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) and track growth in and source of emissions, performance against the Paris Accord commitments and efforts in urban, regional, cumulative, and negative emissions.

GCP also produces the Global Carbon Atlas to visualize all their research. Both sites are a wonder to peruse and truly understand where we are as a planet. I recommend that you follow the links and take a look at some of their offerings. Below I have picked out some of their recent highlights, I am a little more discouraged than they appear to be.

After a significant drop in emissions in 2020 due to Covid-19 shutdowns, fossil CO2 emissions in 2021 appear to have just about  returned to pre-COVID levels. CO2 emissions were 36.4 billion tonnes in 2021 compared to 36.7 billion tonnes in 2019.  CO2 emissions for the United States and the European Union (EU27) though higher than 2020 are still below 2019. However, the CO2 emissions for India and China are above the 2019 levels. , the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked further growth in CO2 emissions, pushed by the power generation and manufacturing sectors.

From the GCP infographic

China, the United States, European Union and India are the major emitters of CO2 from fossil fuels in 2021. All  appear to be returning to their pre-COVID emissions trends- a decreasing trend in CO2 emissions for the USA and European Union and an increasing trend in CO2 emissions for China and India. For China, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked an increased growth rate in CO2 emissions, pushed by the power and industry sectors.

CO2 emissions from China in 2021 are projected to be 5.5% above 2019 levels, reaching 11.1 billion tonnes- over 30% of total world emissions. India's CO2 emissions are projected to grow even faster than China's this year at 12.6%, after a 7.3% fall last year. This resulted in an increase of 4.5% from 2019. Emissions from both the US and European Union are projected to rise 7.6% in 2021. USA and EU, respectively, accounted for just over14% and 7% of global emissions in 2021. Emissions in the rest of the world (including all international transport, particularly aviation) are projected to rise 2.9% this year, but remain 4.2% below 2019 levels. Together, these countries and transport represent 59% of global emissions.

from the GCP

EPA Bans Hydrofluorocarbons

Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule establishing a comprehensive program to cap and phase down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the United States. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, as well as foams and many other applications.

This final rule will phase down the U.S. production and consumption of HFCs by 85% over the next 15 years, as mandated by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act that was enacted  by the U.S. Congress in December 2020. The AIM Act not only phases down HFCs, but  also ushers in the use of more climate friendly and energy efficient alternatives. American companies are at the forefront of developing HFC alternatives and the technologies that use them. If there were a  global phasedown of HFCs, it could  avoid up to 0.5 °C of global warming by 2100. 

The total emission reductions under this rule from 2022 to 2050 are projected to amount to the equivalent of 4.6 billion metric tons of CO2. EPA used the social costs of HFCs to monetize the benefits of this rule. EPA estimates that in 2022, the annual net benefits of this action are $1.7 billion, rising to $16.4 billion in 2036 when the final phasedown step is reached. The present value of the cumulative net benefits of this action is $272.7 billion from 2022 through 2050. The benefits are calculated over the 29-year period from 2022–2050 to account for the years that emissions will be reduced following the consumption reductions from 2022–2036.

The press release says that the Biden-Harris Administration is marshalling a whole-of-government approach to prevent the illegal trade, production, use or sale of HFCs; support the transition to HFC alternatives and encourage the reclamation and recycling of HFCs from retired equipment.  “To help ensure the integrity of the program and a rigorous and timely phasedown, EPA will work with the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the illegal import and trade of HFCs through an interagency task force. The task force will be led by experts from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations and EPA to detect, deter, and disrupt any attempt to illegally import HFCs into the United States.”

They believe that it will be necessary to make the U.S. Boarder somehow impervious to illegal trade of these substance.  Despite the economic benefit to society due to the reduction of 4.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, there is a significant cost to homeowners and businesses to replace refrigeration and cooling equipment. I look forward to seeing how effective these plans are because boarder control has not been the administration's strong suit. This element was deemed important enough in the Administration’s planning to be called out in the press release. So there must be considerable profit to be made by smuggling HFCs into the U.S.

The plans to phase down the use of HFC's began in July 2016 when then Secretary Kerry attended the “Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,” which took  place in Vienna, Austria to discuss the utilizing the Montreal Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  At the time the parties created the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. According to a report at the time from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, HFCs had become one of the fastest growing greenhouse gases, with atmospheric concentrations growing every year. HFC had replaced chloroflurocarboncs (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol.

In the 1980’s when Scientists identified and documented the growing hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, the nations were alarmed. Then the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory postulated the mechanism that created the Antarctic ozone hole. According to their work, the hole in the ozone was created by a reaction of ozone and chlorofluorocarbons free radicals on the surface of ice particles in the high altitude clouds that form over Antarctica.

The nations met and finally were able to negotiate the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by phasing out the manufacture and use of ozone-depleting substances in 1987. The Montreal Protocol was ratified by all nations and is always cited as the most successful multilateral environmental treaty to-date. The Montreal Protocol forced the phase-out of ozone-depleting gases chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and later hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). In 2016 at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties the signatories met to negotiate the phase out of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that had replaced CFCs and HCFCs. While HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer they are a potent greenhouse gas and using the framework of the Montreal Protocol seem expedient. 

According to climate scientists, HFC currently used in the air conditioning and refrigeration industry have global warming potentials thousands of times greater than CO2, though their current impact is limited. Air conditioner sales in many emerging high population economies such as Brazil, India, and Indonesia are growing at 10-15% per year. Scientists now believe that it is essential to phase out HFCs (and natural gas) to mitigate climate change.

2018 World CO2 Emissions

Global CO2 emissions were stable from 2014 to 2016 but grew by 1.4% in 2017 and 2.1% in 2018 to 36.58 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents. Despite some progress in expanding use of low carbon sources of energy, renewable fuels, and increased efficiency, growth in energy use from fossil fuel sources is still outpacing the rise of low-carbon sources and activities.(Jackson, R.B. 2019)

from Global Carbon Project

Global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and industry increased by 2.2% per year on average between 2005 and 2015 (Le Quere C 2018). In order to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement global emissions need to peak and decline rapidly to limit climate change to below 2 °C of warming.

Scientists once hoped that CO2 emissions could be held below the “tipping point,” now the plan is to quickly reach peak emissions and then reverse course reducing global net human-caused CO2 emissions by about 45 % from 2010 levels by 2030 and reaching ‘net zero’ emissions around 2050. (Forbes, 2019). Peak emissions will occur when improvements in the CO2 emitted per unit energy overcome the growth in global energy use. This requires that fossil fuels are replaced by low or no-carbon technologies and we further decouple global GDP from CO2 emissions.

The IPCC 2018 report tells us that climate change has arrived. Average global temperatures have already risen 1.1°C above preindustrial levels and, at current rates of warming, are projected to reach 1.5°C within two decades. A generally growing global economy (when not in Covid-19 shutdowns), insufficient emission reductions in developed countries, and a vast expansion in CO2 emitting energy use in developing countries where per capita emissions remain far below those of wealthier nations will continue to put upward pressure on CO2 emissions. The trajectory of growth in CO2 emission put the planet on a path of warming that is currently well beyond 1.5°C and, potentially, 2°C goals of the Paris Agreement.

Despite the President’s talking points to coal miners and the rollback of several environmental regulations over the past three years, the U.S. CO2 emissions have continued to fall as natural gas has replace coal as the primary fuel in electric supply. In 2019 CO2 emissions declined by about 1.7% after growing 2.8% in 2018, the Global Carbon Project finds that on average U.S. CO2 emissions have decreased about 1% each year for the last 15 years. During that same period China’s CO2 emissions have more than doubled

The above is a summary of the latest report of the Global Carbon Project and its contributors:

Jackson RB, Le Quéré C, Andrew RM , Canadell JG, Korsbakken JI , Liu Z, Peters GP , Zheng B, Friedlingstein P (2019) Global Energy Growth Is Outpacing Decarbonization. A special report for the United Nations Climate Action Summit September 2019. Global Carbon Project, International Project Office, Canberra Australia

Graphs and Data for my pie charts are from:

Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2017) - "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Published online at OurWorldInData.org.

World Energy Use 2018

Energy is the basis of the world economy. In 2018 primary energy consumption grew at a rate of 2.9%, almost double its 10-year average of 1.5% per year. Natural gas, accounted for over 40% of the growth in primary energy. The use of fossil fuels to produce energy releases greenhouse gases which grew by 2.0%, the fastest growth for seven years. Happily, renewable power led by wind and solar power, continued to grow far more rapidly than any other form of energy at 14.5%.

from BP

So let’s take a look at energy consumed world wide during 2018 (the most recent data analyzed). According to data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (published annually) and the U.S. Energy Information Agency world consumption of fuel for energy production (as measured in millions of tonnes of oil equivalents) has increased by about 60% over the last 25 years. Over that time the mix of fuels has changed. Oil remains the most used fuel in the energy mix. Coal is still the second largest fuel despite continuing to lose share in 2018 down to 27% of all fuels. Natural gas increased its share to 24%. The contribution of hydro and nuclear power remained relatively flat in 2018 at 7% and 4%, respectively. Strong growth pushed up solar and wind share to 4% of the energy produced.

from BP showing fuel consumption by region 

Nonetheless, the world is on an unsustainable path: the longer carbon emissions continue to rise, the harder and more costly will be the eventual adjustment to net-zero carbon emissions. Decarbonizing the power sector while also meeting the rapidly expanding demand for power, particularly in the developing world, is perhaps the single most important challenge facing the global energy system over the next 20 years.

Despite the continuing rapid growth in renewable energy last year, it provided only a third of the required increase in power generation, with coal providing a broadly similar contribution. The increasing use of coal within the power sector in rapidly growing economies is estimated to have more than accounted for the entire growth of global coal consumption last year. Take a look at what the energy consumption per capita variation is from highest to lowest is. Remember this is total energy consumed and is not necessarily indicative of CO2 equivalents because it includes various types of energy, coal, natural gas (which has half the CO2 emissions of coal), petroleum, renewable energy etc. The total energy consumed and the mix of energy types together determine the CO2 equivalents emitted.

"Driven by higher energy demand in 2018, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose 1.7% to a historic high of 33.1 Gt CO2. While emissions from all fossil fuels increased, the power sector accounted for nearly two-thirds of emissions growth. Coal use in power alone surpassed 10 Gt CO2, mostly in Asia." In 2018 China emitted 9.5 Gt of CO2 or 29% of all emissions, the United States emitted 5.1 Gt of CO2 or 15% of all emissions and India emitted 2.2 Gt of CO2 or 7% of all emissions. CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb. 

U.S.Energy Use 2019

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the statistics branch of the Department of Energy, the US used 100.2 quadrillion Btu. last year. Energy sources are measured in different physical units depending on the type of energy source: barrels of oil, cubic feet of natural gas, tons of coal, kilowatt hours of electricity. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is a commonly used unit for comparing different types of energy.

In 2019, U.S. primary energy use equaled 100.2 quadrillion (=E15, or one thousand trillion) Btu. If it helps to visualize this any better, that is equivalent to about 2,500 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) the energy measurement standard used by the International Energy Agency, IEA, the keeper of world statistics. In a world with 7.8 billion people the United States is estimated to have 328 million people, about 4% of the world’s population, 7% of the land mass and use about 16% of the energy (according to 2018 data from BP).

In the United States the US Energy Information Administration collects and reports the energy statistics in quadrillion BTUs and has recently reported the summary data for 2019. These statistics paint a picture of who we are today. The major energy sources in the United States are petroleum-gas and oil (37%), natural gas (32%), coal (11%), nuclear (8%), and renewable energy primarily biomass and hydro power generation (11%). For the first time since 1957 the United States produced more energy we consume. The United States produced 101.0 quadrillion BTUs of energy and consumed 100.2 quadrillion BTUs. U.S. energy production grew 5.7% in 2019 and energy consumption decreased by 0.9% in 2019.

The major users are heating and electric power for residential (16%) and commercial buildings (12%), industry (35%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (37%). Electric power generation is an intermediate use that ultimately serves other sectors.

from EIA

The slightly complicated chart above shows the types of fuel and the sector that consumes it. Looking at petroleum, you can see that it supplies almost 37% of our energy needs. Transportation, cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships, uses 70% of petroleum and that petroleum provides 91% of the total energy used in transportation. Industry uses 24% of the total petroleum consumed by the United States to supply 34% of the energy used by industry. Studying all the details of the chart tells you a lot about the United States in 2019. It will also allow you to understand the impact that policies, regulation and scientific advances might have on the country.

Coal use has trended down since its peak of 24.0 quadrillion BTUs in 1998, mainly as a result of declining use of coal for U.S. electricity generation. In 2019, coal production was 14.3 quadrillion BTUs. Coal consumption was 11.3 quadrillion BTUs in 2019 in the United States mostly to generate electricity. The difference between production and consumption was exported. Regulations like the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule affecting electricity generation have reduced the use of coal in the United States over the last 10 years from 21% of energy down to 11% of energy used.

Nuclear energy is entirely used in one sector, electrical generation. Even though there were fewer operating nuclear reactors in 2019 than in 2000, the amount of nuclear energy produced in 2019 was the highest on record at 8.46 quadrillion BTUs, mainly because of a combination of increased capacity from power plant upgrades and shorter refueling and maintenance cycles.

Natural gas production reached a record high of 34.9 quadrillion BTUs in 2019. Natural gas is the source of 32% of the energy consumed in the United States and in 2019 was used almost equally for industry, electrical generations and residential and commercial heating. The natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the United States. U.S. natural gas production and consumption were nearly in balance through 1986. From 1986 to 2006 consumption of natural gas outpaced production, and imports rose. Then in 2006 U.S. production of natural gas began to increase as a result of the development of more efficient and cost effective hydraulic fracturing techniques. U.S. natural gas production has exceeded U.S. natural gas consumption since 2017. Going forward regulations and planning will impact the cost, amount and mix of energy consumed by the nation.

Virginia and EPA’s CO2 Cap

from VEP

On October 14, 2014 Governor Terry McAuliffe released the 2014 Virginia Energy Plan, stating that “Virginia must implement policies that promote a genuine all of the above strategy that includes traditional energy sources, renewable sources, and energy efficiency.” This all of the above strategy is mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and indorsed by our Governor. This year the Energy Plan was amended to include an analysis of any regulations proposed or promulgated by the EPA to include: the costs to and benefits for energy producers and electric utility customers; the effect on energy markets and reliability; and the commercial availability of technology required to comply with those regulations. This change was in response to the new EPA Clean Power Plan which limits CO2 generated from the production of electricity. The proposed rules significantly reduce carbon emissions at existing plants, they are not merely incremental steps in cleaning up the atmosphere; they will significantly alter fuel choices and investments by utilities for the 21st Century, which is exactly EPA’s intention.

Back in spring of 2013 President Obama presented his vision for a U.S. Climate Action Plan at a speech at Georgetown University. The White House describes this plan as “a series of executive actions” to be implemented through regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The first action under the President’s climate plan was the development of carbon emissions standards for new power plants. The next step was taken in June 2014 when the EPA proposed their Clean Power Plan, additional carbon emissions regulations for existing power plants based on authority granted under 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act. There is an unreconciled difference in the versions of the law passed by the Senate and the House and the Clean Air Act may or may not contain this authority (depending on which version of the law prevails in a court challenge), also there is question if EPA can mandate consumer behavior which is incorporated in the mandates of the Clean Power Plan.

Nonetheless, the Commonwealth must move forward with compliance because it is a multi-year process. The EPA expects to publish the final Clean Power Plan rule in June 2015. State-specific compliance plans are due to the EPA for review and approval in June 2016, or slightly later depending on the compliance and planning approach taken by the state. Mandated compliance with the interim CO2 emissions reductions begin in 2020 and continue until 2030 when the requirement for a 30% reduction of CO2 emissions from 2005 levels is to be achieved. However, the 2005 baseline has nothing to do with the mandated future CO2 emission rate targets. In the proposed regulations, 2012 is the actual baseline year chosen by the EPA to calculate the interim and final CO2 goals for each state. Also, the cap is based on assumptions for total emissions; there will be significantly more people in the U.S. in 2030 assumptions on where they will live and how much power they use may not be accurate.

The Whitehouse and EPA policy strategists point out a similarity between the carbon control regulations and the regulations to control acid rain several decades ago. However SO2 (the source of the acid rain) was allocated under a one-step calculation. This proposed EPA CO2 regulation uses a seven step process, shown in a 54 column spreadsheet; and is supplemented by the output of an Integrated Planning Model simulation, implementation of a mandated renewable energy program and an a consumer energy efficiency or demand-side management program in each state.

EPA proposed that the states have flexibility in developing their compliance plans saying that the states may choose to change from a CO2 emissions rate based compliance approach and establish a mass-based (total CO2 tonnage) cap that can be used in a regional trading program (like the RGGI program currently used by nine northeastern states). Though EPA seems to be heavily pushing the adoption of a regional carbon trading program, Virginia’s CO2 state compliance plan must be submitted to EPA by June 2016 and it would take several more years to implement such a program. Virginia would need to identify state trading partners, pass enabling legislation in Virginia (as would be required in the other states), sign multi-state MOU’s, establish trading rules and compliance testing within the state trading group, and obtain EPA approval (and possibly Congressional approval of the interstate compact). Because of these timing obstacles, the use of a regional trading program for initial compliance with the EPA Clean Power Plan regulations may not be possible. However, the report recommends that Virginia begin to explore the use of this option as soon as possible.

Within the Virginia Energy Plan 6 compliance scenarios were developed with the input of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, the State Corporation Commission, and the report consulting team to determine whether Virginia could comply with the proposed EPA Clean Power Plan. Compliance scenarios were defined using changes to the electric generation mix. A detailed model evaluating, at each generating unit in Virginia, fixed and variable operating cost, fuel cost, CO2 emissions, and location in the grid for stability and reliability of power was developed. Additionally, natural gas-fired units could not be place just anywhere, they need an adequate fuel supply.

Four of the scenarios allowed Virginia to meet the requirements of the EPA Clean Power Plan. All four of the successful scenarios include major increases in the use of natural gas fueled electrical generation and a need for expansion of the existing natural gas pipeline network into the Commonwealth. Here is the reason for Governor McAuliffe’s support of a gas pipeline. It is needed to meet the EPA Clean Power Plan CO2 emission targets within the time and technology constraints. The simple truth is that coal emits 2,268 lbs. of CO2 per Megawatt hour while the natural gas fired turbines emits 903 lbs. of CO2 per Megawatt hour. Virginia is currently at 1,438 lbs. of CO2 emitted per megawatt hour of electricity generated and we need to be at 991 lbs. of CO2 per megawatt hour in 2020 and 810 lbs. of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity generated in 2030 to be in compliance with the EPA Clean Power Plan.

All of the successful scenarios represent a net loss of employment in the Commonwealth. Though there are increases in “green jobs” for installing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, it is not nearly enough to make up for the loss of employment in the coal sector. Virginia accounted for 4.5% of U.S. coal production east of the Mississippi River in 2012. The jobs at the seaport at Norfolk is America's largest coal export facility are expected to be unaffected.

The electricity generated in Virginia represents only about 64% of the electricity used in Virginia. In 2012 coal provided approximately 21% of the electric power in Virginia. In 2012, the four operating nuclear generating units provided about 27.4 million megawatt hours of an approximately 109 million megawatt hours of electricity used in the Commonwealth. A new nuclear generating unit is being considered by Dominion Power at the North Anna plant and would provide an additional 10.3 million megawatt hours of CO2 emission-free power once at full operation, allowing in state nuclear to provide almost 40% of total generation. The inclusion of more nuclear generation in Virginia’s portfolio will significantly alter the energy mix in the long term, decreasing the needed contribution from natural gas, but it can take more than a decade to design, obtain approvals, license and built a nuclear plant.

The EPA Clean Power Plan also requires new renewable energy generation, energy efficiency and demand side management. All the successful the compliance scenarios will require expansion of renewable energy incentive programs. Virginia has less solar power than our neighbors. Though we have net metering there is no solar carve out under the Renewable Portfolio Goal. In addition in 2012, the legislature amended the net metering law to allow utilities to charge stand-by fees to residential net metering customers to charge for transmission and distribution infrastructure. Residential consumers with a system capacity greater than 10 kilowatts must now pay $2.79 a kilowatt in monthly distribution standby charges and $1.40 kilowatt in monthly transmission standby charges. Non-residential consumers with grid connected renewable generation are exempt from these additional charges. Some believe that the standby charges are a disincentive, but most residential installation are smaller than 10 kilowatts.

As of June 2014, the total net metered capacity of solar photovoltaic systems in Virginia was just over 12 megawatts. This is far less than in neighboring Maryland, with 158 megawatts (MEA, 2014), and North Carolina with 592 megawatts. Currently, Virginia law does not allow a third party to install and own a renewable energy facility on a utility customer’s property and sell the utility customer the power produced. To make solar leasing viable, there has to be enabling legislation and financial incentives. At one time, Virginia citizens could sell their solar RECs, also known as SRECs, in North Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, to help electric utilities in those states and the District meet their renewable portfolio mandates. However, at this time, Maryland and the District of Columbia no longer allow out-of-state SRECs, and the SREC markets in Pennsylvania and North Carolina are oversupplied and the SRECs are almost worthless. The federal tax credit vanishes in 2016 and without additional financial incentives solar power is too expensive to compete.

There are numerous semiconductor technologies used to manufacture PV products. PV is an evolving technology, with incremental efficiency gains each year. As technology and manufacturing methods improve, costs continue to come down. When PV was first used commercially to power satellites in the 1950s a 1 watt cell cost $300. In 2013, residential system prices fell to an average $4.59/watt, non-residential prices fell to an average $3.57/Watt, and utility scale systems fell to an average $1.96/Watt. We are still pretty far from solar PV being cost-competitive; so the Virginia legislature will have to develop financial incentives to meet the requirements of the EPA Clean Power Plan. The same type of programs will be necessary to meet the “demand management” requirements of the Clean Power Plan rules.

CO2 Emissions in the U.S. are Rising

As delegates gathered for the United Nations Climate Summit, both the U.S. Energy Information Agency and the Global Carbon Project released their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions data for the first half of 2014. The data from the Global Carbon Project projects that for 2014 37.0 ± 1.9 Giga metric tons of CO2 , will be released into the earth’s atmosphere. That is a 2.5% increase over last year and a 65% increase over 1990 CO2 emission levels. The top four emitters of CO2 in 2014 are expected to be the same as in 2013 when the share of emissions was: China at 28%, the United States at 14%, the European Union at 10% and India at 7%.

data from EIA

The EIA data shows that for the first half of 2014 carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere in the United States increased by 2.7% over last year continuing the upward trend in CO2 emissions which were at their lowest in 2012. As can be seen in the graph above and chart below, there has been a general downward trend in CO2 emissions since 2007 in all sectors of the economy. (Please note that both the residential sector and industrial sector include part of the electrical generation emissions so that the parts add up to more CO2 than the total emission from the economy. The chart includes the commercial sector and removes the mixed sector electrical category.) Though overall emissions of CO2 in the United States have fallen 10.4% since 2007 and that is generally true in all sectors of the economy; the largest share of reduction in CO2 emissions was from reduction in emissions from electrical generation which have fallen 15% over the period. Over the same period, CO2 emissions from burning coal in manufacturing, transportation, and industry are down 21%. However, CO2 emissions from burning coal are up 3.25% in the first 6 months of this year and emissions from burning natural gas are up 4.9%. The increase in natural gas appears to be divided fairly evenly among the commercial, industrial and residential sectors.

data from EIA

Electricity generation accounts for approximately 38% of the CO2 emission in 2013 down from 40% in 2007. In 1990 electricity generation accounted for only 36% of the total U.S CO2 emissions. In 2013 the industrial sector accounted for 28% of all CO2 emissions, but back in 1990 industry accounted for 34% of total CO2 emissions. Back in the days when I was a plant engineer, the industrial sector accounted for 40% of all CO2 emissions. Over this period the industrial output has not shrunk, but the labor and energy inputs to industry have shrunk and production has surged and fallen with  recessions as can be seen in the chart from the Federal Reserve.

US industrial production from the Federal Reserve

 As you can see in the chart to the left the CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity have fallen since 2005. A portion of the reduction in CO2 emissions was from the reduction in power generation, the rest was due to a change in the mix of fuels used to produce the electricity and the increase in power produced by renewable energy. As can be seen in the chart below power generation from renewable sources increased by 241% since 2007, but represent only 6% of the power generated in the united states. The big change was the move away from coal to natural gas. Coal fell from 48% of generation in 2007 to 39% of generation in 2013. While natural gas increased from producing  22% of  electricity in 2007 to 27% in 2013.

from EIA

The EPA, Supreme Court and Carbon Dioxide

On Monday, June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA finding that regulators are not fee to “revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” The practical impact of this decision on current EPA regulations is limited, but the precedent is important.

Back in April 2007 in a decision in Massachusetts v EPA (2007), the Supreme Court had ruled that the Clean Air Act did authorize federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and that the agency was required to issue them for automobiles unless it had a scientific basis for its refusal. That case was brought by several states to force the EPA to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

This decision was followed in December 2009 by EPA finding that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” These greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2) were thus pollutants under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act which deals entirely with mobile sources of pollution.

The EPA then took the next step and went on to address greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, from stationary sources. The problem in regulating CO2 from stationary sources is that the Clean Air Act imposes very specific permitting requirements on stationary sources, that are a “major emitting facility”. The Clean Air Act specifically defines a “major emitting facility” as a stationary source with the potential to emit 250 tons per year of “any air pollutant” (or 100 tons per year for certain types of sources). Facilities seeking to qualify for a permit must, demonstrate that they comply with emissions limitations that reflect the “best available control technology” for “each pollutant subject to regulation under” the Act. In addition, Title V of the Clean Air Act makes it unlawful to operate any “major source,” wherever located, without a permit. A “major source” is a stationary source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of “any air pollutant.”

The obvious problem is that these thresholds would require virtually any commercial building, school, churches, farm, landfill and some residences to obtain a permit to operate under the Clean Air Act a process that according to the EPA could cost $20,000-$50,000 for each entity. So the EPA attempted to side step this issue by raising the permit triggering limits to 100,000 tons to qualify as a major emitting facility for greenhouse gases and 75,000 tons for a stationary source to require a permit under the law.

The Supreme Court found that the EPA lacked authority to “tailor” the Act’s unambiguous numerical thresholds of 100 or 250 tons per year to accommodate its greenhouse-gas-inclusive interpretation of the permitting triggers. This according to the decision would have been an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s authority, the ability determine carbon dioxide standards and enforcement without congressional authority. Stating that “Agencies must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

The decision states that “the Clean Air Act neither compels nor permits EPA" to require a stationary source to obtain a “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD) or Title V permit only on the basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. However, EPA can reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with a “best available control technology” requirement for greenhouse gases.

So, EPA gets to require already regulated stationary sources of pollution to use the “best available control technology” to reduce greenhouse gases and determine the limits. This would cover according to the EPA 83% of the greenhouse gas emission from stationary sources. This decision does not address the recently proposed regulations to create national CO2 emissions standards for new and existing power plants with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions.

The EPA Puts the Nation on a CO2 Diet

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy announced new regulations that the EPA is proposing to put in place under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants under President Barak Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The details described in the news release summaries were not an entirely accurate reflection of what I read in the proposed regulation.

Power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States accounting for about 33% of greenhouse gas release (and slightly more of carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane (CH4). According to the EPA CO2 represents 84% of mass of greenhouse gas emissions and that the climate models indicate to be the cause of climate change. The proposed regulations will require power plants to cut their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels or 18% from 2013 levels by using a combination of approaches.

data from EIA

One of the main goals of this proposed regulation is reducing the amount of electricity generated from coal fired power plant and reducing the total number of coal fired power plants in the United States. In the past few years the EPA has implemented tougher regulations for these power plants. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) are two of the latest regulations to address power plants. MATS regulates mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide and slashes emissions of those pollutants from coal fired electrical generation plants. The CSPR is aimed at coal fired electrical generation plants, too. It slashes smokestack emissions of SO2 and NOX that can travel into neighboring states. Those pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to achieve their particle requirements under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which have also recently been tightened. Until now there has been no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much CO2 as they want, though several states already have some sort of limitation on CO2; and CO2 generation in the United States has been falling in the past seven years.

President Obama has directed the EPA to create national CO2 emissions standards for new and existing power plants with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Last September the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised their proposed Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon pollution from new power plants. Under the revised proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a carbon dioxide (CO2) limit of 1,000-1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour depending on size, while new coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Existing coal –fired electrical generation turbines emit about 2,080-2,180 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of power produced. Natural gas produces about 1,170 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

With Monday’s announcement the EPA is proposing regulation for the existing power plants requiring a reduction in the overall CO2 emitted by the nation. If these regulations if implemented and in effect today, the effect would be to reduce overall CO2 emissions of all the nations on earth by less than 1% and by the time they are actually implemented the impact will be a fraction of a percent. So, these regulations are not going to change the impact of CO2 on the climate.

The approach the EPA is taking is to allocate to each state a CO2 limit. The basic formula for the limit assigned to each state is:

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants) divided by (state electricity generation from fossil-fuel fired power plants plus certain low- or zero-emitting power sources).

It is to be noted that existing hydropower is excluded from the base calculation, but additional hydropower will be included in the denominator. EPA lists the interim and final goal for each state on pages 346-348 of the proposed regulation preceded by the explanation of how they arrived at these goals. According to the EPA, their approach factors in megawatt hours from fossil fuel power plants plus other types of power generation like renewables and nuclear, as well as megawatt-hour savings from energy efficiency in the state. The final goal for Virginia is 810 pound of CO2 emitted per net megawatt hours of electricity produce in the state, for Maryland it is 1,187 and for West Virginia 1,620. The EPA expects the regulations to result in a reduction in the electricity used per capita and in the CO2 generated per megawatt hour of electricity produced, and details how each state will achieve it in the 645 page regulation.

There are expected to be comments and legal challenges to the regulation, since it appears to be an expansion of the scope of existing laws and there are significant fiscal implications of the regulation across the economy. Nonetheless the EPA will mandate the limit and the states must provide a plan for achieving that limit that is acceptable to the EPA by June 30, 2016. States must determine a mix of four overall strategies that the EPA “helps” them pick:

• Make fossil fuel power plants more efficient. Though, it is estimated by the EPA that many coal plants can be upgraded to become slightly more efficient; this will be very cost dependent. Efficiency gains are expected to be 6%.
• Use lower CO2 emitting power plants more. This strategy both encourages the increase in utilization of the existing natural gas fired power plants (as well as construction of gas fired power plants). EPA considers increase utilization of low CO2 emitting power generation in the base load the preferred option of achieving the goal. 
• Use more zero- and low-emitting power sources by expanding renewable energy programs. The EPA is requiring the expansion of states’ Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, which require that a portion of energy produced to be by renewable. Within the prosed regulation EPA has assigned each state (with the exception of Vermont) a renewable energy generation goal (pages 202-204 of the proposed regulation). Virginia which currently supplies 3% of electricity from renewable sources is required to supply 16% of electricity from renewable sources. (Maryland currently supplies 2% from renewables and is also required to supply 16% from renewable sources in 2030.) Texas will be required to supply 20% of their electricity from renewable sources and currently supplies 8%. You get the picture. 
• Use electricity more efficiently. EPA is also requiring each state to establish energy savings programs and the amount of savings that utilities must achieve through customer energy efficiency programs. See page 229 of the regulation for each states goal. 
• Utilization of programs such as state cap and trade to put pressure on the CO2 generation and encourage the investment into energy saving and greenhouse gas reducing technologies. EPA looks for expansion of the various cap and trade programs that exist in 10 states. The states can develop a state-only plan or collaborate with other states to develop plans on a multi-state basis and EPA supplies the states your home state is grouped with. Delaware, District of Columbia (despite having no goals), Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia are grouped together in the East Central group. 

Though a national cap and trade law to address CO2 failed to pass the senate in 2009 and died, cap and trade law and regulations for CO2 exist in California and a program exists among nine northeastern states. In addition, cap and trade was used successfully to address the acid rain problem in the 1990’s. That program served as a way to cut pollution without heavy-handed regulations, allowing each business to choose how to reach the mandated goal. Each year the cap would ratchet down, allowing less pollution while market forces drove up the price for permits, creating an incentive for industries to invest in air scrubbers and pollution removal technology. However, that program was a permit trading program among regulated plants and not effectively covering the entire economy. The proposed CO2 regulation covers all electrical generation, its cost and availability in the United States.

One of the challenges in reducing CO2 emissions in the United States has been that there is no economically feasible carbon capture technology that can be retrofitted to a coal fired power plant and too much of the CO2 generated nationally comes from coal fired power plants- almost 13%. In addition, power companies are utilities that are limited by layers of regulations that control pricing and limit flexibility due to technical, business and jurisdictional constraints. The U.S. is the largest producer of natural gas, so we have alternatives. With this regulation the EPA is now taking control of the power generation sector of the economy to remake that industry in a less carbon intensive and more efficient vision. These regulations are likely to increase the cost and possibly limit the availability of electricity, but are also intended to reduce the use of electricity. These regulations will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants. This era began with the oil crisis in 1972 and will end with the EPA issuing CO2 “budgets” and potentially creates a regional or national carbon trading market for “carbon credits."

I should admit that I am one of the many who prefer a carbon tax to EPA's command and control regulations. Taxing the carbon content of products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more effective method of reducing CO2 production without regulators taking control of a significant segment of the economy and could be applied to imports. However, a direct tax must come from the legislature, not regulation, and would have to be negotiated and vetted by the elected representatives of the people. It would certainly generate badly needed revenue for our government that is running at a deficit.  

The Kemper Plant and Carbon Sequestration

from Mississippi Power

Last September the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised their proposed Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon pollution from new power plants. Under the revised proposal, new coal-fired electrical generation turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Existing coal –fired electrical generation turbines emit about 2,080-2,180 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of power produced. All existing plants would be grandfathered and exempt from this rule for a period of time, but the EPA was expected to propose CO2 limitations for existing power plants next month. Increased regulation on existing plants was to occur after demonstration of the commercial use of a kind of carbons capture and sequestration (CCS) technology called Transport Integrated Gasification (TRIG™) technology at a newly built power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. This TRIG technology was developed by Southern Company (the parent of Mississippi Power) and KBR in conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE).

TRIG is a coal-gasification method designed to be cleaner (capturing 65% of CO2), cheaper and to work with lower rank coals like the Mississippi Lignite. However, the construction of this new technology plant has been besieged with problems and cost and timing overruns as details such as pipe thickness and metallurgy were miscalculated in the initial design. Originally, the project was estimated to cost $2.4 billion to build the 582,000 kilowatts plant that translated to $4,123 per kilowatt (before DOE grants and tax credits). Now, however, the Kemper plant is projected to be delayed another year until May 2015 and to cost $5.5 billion or $9,450 per kilowatt, and the technology has not even been demonstrated to work on an industrial scale, yet.

from Mississippi Power

Mississippi Power, the smallest utility subsidiary of Southern Company, owns the plant and can only recover up to $3.8 billion for the Kemper costs through customer rates and the sale of securitized bonds. Customers began paying 22% higher utility rates for their power to Mississippi Power after the Kemper plant was allowed into the cost base last year after a lengthy regulatory battle. Meanwhile, Southern Company/ Mississippi Power has taken a $1,037,000,000 charge (so far) against earnings to write off costs overruns that cannot be recovered. The EPA has described carbon capture and sequestration as an available technology that will increase the capital cost of every new coal plant built in the United States by only 35%, but the cost overruns at Kemper have more than doubled the cost of the plant and brought the cost of building a coal fired electrical turbine to about nine times the cost of a gas fired turbine.

Regulating CO2 emissions from power plants are all part of the President’s Climate Action Plan that directs all federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The EPA is the lead regulator of the plan to cut carbon pollution. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in the United States; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change. Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) most recent preliminary data through March 2013 show coal has generated 40% or more of the nation's electricity each month since November 2012, with natural gas fueling about 25% of generation during the same period. In 2012 natural gas had accounted for a larger share of power generation than in 2013, but fuel costs and power demand during the recent harsh winter increased the power generated by coal fired power plants.

from EIA

The Kemper plant will not be abandoned; it will be completed and will be operated. Southern Company or Mississippi Power, the operating subsidiary, (and possibly bond holders) will have to write off an additional $700 million or more, but the Kemper plant once it’s completed and running will have operational cost advantages. The plant is adjacent to a new coal mine with over 4 billion tons of lignite and near to old Mississippi oil fields. Lignite coal after drying out for three days is fine for the type of plant Southern is building and can supply the plant for centuries. The old oil fields offer an opportunity to sell the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Kemper’s pressurized and liquefied carbon dioxide will be used to enhance oil recovery and is estimated to increase oil production by 2 million barrels a year. Liquefied CO2 is valued at around $40 a ton right now and Kemper is projected to capture about 3-3.5 million tons a year.

The Kemper plant when it is finally completed will have a base coal-fired capacity of 524,000 kilowatts and natural gas capacity 58,000 kilowatts. The plant will capture 65% of total CO2 emissions resulting in 3-3.5 million tons per year of captured CO2 and reducing the CO2 emissions per megawatt to under 800 pounds if the plant performs as designed. The Kemper plant will also have fewer particulate, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions than traditional pulverized coal plants making it the cleanest coal plant ever built.

The utility rate payers and shareholder will both share in the high cost of this project. You and I threw in a little bit, too. Mississippi Power received a $270 million grant from the Department of Energy for the project and $133 million in investment tax credits approved by the Internal Revenue Service. Although by missing its projected deadline it will loses some of the tax benefits.

from Mississippi Power

World Carbon Emissions

Recently, President Obama has been focusing on climate change. So, I decided to take a look at the “Trends in Global Emissions 2013 Report” the latest report from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Using data collected from various sources and the computer model called EDGAR (Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research) they compile the world estimates of CO2 emissions data.

In 2012, total world emissions of CO2 increased by 1.4% (corrected for leap year it was 1.1%) over 2011, to reach a total of 34.5 billion tonnes of CO2. In 2012 the top five world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were (once again) in descending order China, the United States, the European Union, India and the Russian Federation.

The rate of increase in CO2 emissions has slowed. The average annual increase in world CO2 emissions was 2.9% per year since 2000. This growth was driven primarily by the growth in China, India and other developing countries as those economies emerged. India’s GDP growth at around 4% in 2012 was the lowest in a decade. India’s CO2 emissions in 2012 continued to increase by 6.8% to about 2.0 billion tonnes. China with the largest population is the largest CO2 emitter on earth. They increased CO2 emissions by 3% in 2012, compared to an average rate of increase in CO2 emissions of around 10% per year during the last decade.

In the United States CO2 emissions decreased by 4% in 2012. The United States which represents 16% of total world emissions has decreased total CO2 emissions each year since 2005. In 2012, with GDP (gross domestic product) growth of 2%, their CO2 emissions decreased by 4%, mainly because of a fuel shift from coal to gas in the power generation. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 as coal for the same amount of electricity. In recent years, the United States expanded shale gas fracturing and has now become the largest natural gas producer in the world.

In the European Union CO2 emissions decreased 1.6% in 2012. The European Union, as a whole, was in a recession in 2012. The European Union’s GDP declined by 0.3%, compared to 2011, and CO2 emissions declined by 1.3%. The European Union reported a decrease in consumption of oil and gas, by 4% and 2% respectively, a decrease in freight transported of 4%, and a decrease of 2% in total emissions from power generation and manufacturing installations. However, the use of coal for power generation increased in the European Union in 2012. Relative pricing for coal and gas and a decrease in the use of nuclear energy to generate power in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident are responsible for the increase in coal use in other parts of the world.

Renewable energy power generation has increased worldwide. The use of hydropower has accelerated and its output increased by 4.3%, between 2011 and 2012. The share of the ‘new’ renewable energy from solar, wind and biofuel also increased to 2.4% in 2012. In 2012 there appeared to be a ‘decoupling’ of the increase in CO2 emissions from global GDP growth. This may be an anomaly or indicate a shift towards less fossil-fuel intensive activities or fuel switch to less CO2 intense fuels, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving.

Nonetheless, the worldwide level of CO2 emissions is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just six years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models. The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one previously assumed as research continues and time lags and other factors are studied and climate prediction models are modified to reflect ongoing research. The developed world no longer drives or controls CO2 emissions, and there is little we can do to change the future. What is going to happen will happen. Though we should still strive to reduce our personal energy use and efficiency.

Supreme Court Revives EPA Rule Targeting Coal Power Plants

EPA's breakdown of power plant pollution

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can reinstate the  Cross State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, which allows EPA’s "cost-effective allocation of emissionsreductions among upwind states”  by requiring some state to clean up more than their fair share of pollution. CSAPR dictates each State’s emissions reduction goals and the Federal Implementation Plans to obtain those goals at the State level. However, the EPA had used computer modeling to generate emissions “budgets” for each upwind State without regard for the amount of pollution each state was contributing to a downwind problem, but based instead on the cost of remediation. Now the Supreme Court has confirmed requiring the level of cleanup to be based on cost and requiring more work to be done where the cost of capturing a ton of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide was the lowest creating a pollution trading system.

Back in  August 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled (2-1) that the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority by requiring some state to clean up more than their fair share of pollution. The Supreme Court has overruled that decision. CASPR was intended to prevent pollution from one state from moving into other states and preventing them from meeting their air quality goals. CSAPR, when implemented will reduce SO2 emissions by 73% from 2005 levels and NOx emissions by 54% at the approximately 1,000 coal fired electrical generation plants in the eastern half of the country. The industry has indicated that many of these plants may be forced to close. This rule is intended to help downwind states unfairly impacted by upwind states attain their 24-Hour and/or Annual particulate pollution of 2.5 micrometers or less called PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. CSAPR will replace EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

The earth’s atmosphere is interconnected. That is accepted when it comes to carbon dioxide, but it also applies to industrial pollutants and soot. The EPA has estimated that just one-quarter of U.S. measured pollution emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. The remainder enters the global cycle. Conversely, current estimates are that less than half of all measured coal pollution emissions deposited within the United States comes from American sources. According to the Mount Bachelor Observatory, Chinese exports include acid rain that falls in China, Korea, and Japan, and pollutants that enter the air stream including sulfates, NOx, black carbon, soot produced by cars, stoves, factories, and crop burning. EPA can now address these pollutants based on the cost of remediation instead of based on contribution by a state.

However, as a president, CSAPR may do much more. In the next two months the EPA is expected to propose a new sweeping set of Clean Air Act regulations to cut emission of carbon dioxide to fight global warming. According to the EPA the largest source of carbon dioxide is coal fired power plants, this decision will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants. This era began with the oil crisis in 1972 and will end with CSAPR. However, using this decision EPA can allocate carbon dioxide “budgets” based on costs to meet the budget and potentially creates a national carbon trading market for carbon dioxide. In addition, it could create interstate trade and tariff  issues when allocating carbon dioxide and methane “budgets” in a world of greenhouse gas caps and trade markets.

from EIA

The End of Coal May Not Be the Time of Methane

On Wednesday, Gina McCarthy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Ms. McCarthy spoke about the EPA’s plans for the United States within the framework of the directions given to federal agencies last June saying: “The President’s Climate Action Plan directs federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change.”

The first steps of the President’s and EPA’s Climate program addressed motor vehicles, which emit nearly a third of U.S. carbon pollution. The EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new millage and emission standards for automobiles and light trucks for model year 2012 through 2016 that require vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level entirely through fuel economy improvements. A second set of standards requires continued improvement in gas mileage of about a 5% per year in average fuel economy from 2016 – 2025 that will result in car and light truck fuel economy to an average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025.

After addressing automobiles, the President asked EPA to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power plants, which are responsible for about 40 % of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. This month EPA is expected to release the revised Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants that had previously been announced 2012 and limits the amount of CO2 that can be produced for each megawatt of electricity produced. Under the revised rule, it is expected that new power plants will have to emit no more than 1,100 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy produced. . That standard will effectively change the fuel of choice for all future power capacity additions to natural gas, nuclear, or the renewable category (with government subsidies). All existing plants and currently permitted and built in the next 12 months will be grandfathered and exempt from this new rule for a period of time. Reductions in CO2 generation from power plants will not improve human health, but the official “social costs” of carbon dioxide used by the EPA to $65 per ton.

EPA has also issued other regulations targeted at coal fired power plants, EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, CSAPR, Mercury and Air Toxic's Standard, MATS and the lowering of the primary annual 2.5 micron particulate standard (PM 2.5) to 12. CSAPR which requires reductions of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions in coal fired plants was made final in July but at the end of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit granted a stay to the implementation of the CSAPR pending resolution of the legal challenges. MATS regulates mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide and was finalized on December 21. 2011. All of these regulations are anticipated to have direct human health benefits in addition to reducing the ability of coal fired power plants to operate. There will be a reduction in the number of coal fired power plants and no new coal plants will be built. The 92% of the market for coal is domestic power plants. That market will shrink and wither and the age of coal will end.

The President’s Plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to address emissions of methane – a powerful greenhouse gas that also contributes to ozone pollution. So it remains unclear if regulations aimed at methane will reduce the feasibility of using our abundant natural gas resources as the primary fuel in power generation and for heating of commercial and residential buildings.

Even as EPA works to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, they are incorporating research on climate impacts into the implementation of their regulatory programs. According to Ms. McCarthy, EPA is working to build our national resilience to Climate Change, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies, protecting our water utilities, and protecting and restoring our forests in the fact of a changing climate. In addition, EPA will continue to engage in discussions with other nations to develop strategies for reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities.” These include public-private partnership efforts to address emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the Global Methane Initiative, as well as bilateral cooperation with major economies.”